Re: [Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: (with COMMENT)

Sean Turner <> Wed, 13 February 2019 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996C51295EC for <>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SXM1con0Vzo5 for <>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:25:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA299130EE1 for <>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w4so975623qtc.1 for <>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:25:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BDL7xo2VpmHqJiQXi1yy4mHQ/uieowJXQgVkPQ4glQA=; b=MuTXfsYxf+kgOtbnLj5eQ+T5TjRkroqcnPRIzFgX4lALwCkSdtmXZw/lAUNdQDu42P 4g26vBaqcEpsRrcl2roXoVHQLDwzKhUsDOwFDTWtKKkBTAg82pvejPAh4Pa7ALr4K8Jn ZvNkFhEThrh3IKCu6L07NphTRfY/pnDrln1g4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=BDL7xo2VpmHqJiQXi1yy4mHQ/uieowJXQgVkPQ4glQA=; b=ahXAWfsip2Gdjl6yiioJtN3NJES+qHfAzvvtgC42m70/jDF5ZIk2AnlK8pfHH6L5J/ 05bacFK6kOd9KbovrdTLSKqtRBc0VZkiOeJ/BQRDPNEKbaONIBWz8nvzvDVkNFnDk6bg 1PpOGGG7k7JcOVXV9nopOxdk3qRPnFCNKtG1RXU2/cLQIDx57/zSeke8U2OeWoEw2YqC zv7idZodzO3PYGMgmmbDP9WnW2VVz1/fixwhqzMOUYmznKNn5U48H3KOpPyHn7wRupM/ D5fO1+zabJDG/vIVAtpJocoT7gXw7gNc1IBNABMfu5fR/62fkJknLjaQAsP3BZkSyYZC bKbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubLrSmoZcUs+UYS6QP7RgpnsBe1KSQlCLMl2MG4ElhHRCWif3Bl 0FL2c2Fcw5t472cO5Hwr6z2mdQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Iattq7+GbLdkgvBDmZ1067ikNwvtMsH1wjEHTQ23eaFO5Rl6sdy04e9rtfV0EzqyrEGnrMTMw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1c5d:: with SMTP id j29mr5224590qtk.113.1550024733024; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id b22sm8339880qtc.23.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Sean Turner <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 21:25:31 -0500
Cc: The IESG <>,, Chris Morrow <>, SIDROps Chairs <>, SIDR Operations WG <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:25:40 -0000

> On Jan 23, 2019, at 12:46, Alvaro Retana <> wrote:
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: No Objection
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (1) I don't really have a strong objection for this document being a BCP. 
> However, while documenting two different methods, there is no clear indication
> of "what is believed to be the best" [rfc2026], or even better, which method
> should be used in what situations.  I understand that operators have different
> preferences/needs and that prescribing one method as the default in not the
> right thing to do.
> I would really like to see some text (maybe a "Deployment Considerations"
> section) that talks about when one or the other might be preferred/considered.

Right so I am hoping that Randy’s answer helped here.  The only thing I will add is that it really depends on what gear you buy so in some sense I am kind of wobbly on whether we should pick one.

> (2) §4: s/BGP Identifier [RFC4271]/BGP Identifier [RFC6286]

Good catch!

> (3) §4: "In the case where the operator has chosen not to use unique per-router
> certificates, a BGP Identifier of 0 MAY be used." rfc6286 defines the BGP
> Identifier as always being non-zero.  rfc8209 says that "if the same
> certificate is issued to more than one router (and hence the private key is
> shared among these routers), the choice of the router ID used in this name is
> at the discretion of the Issuer."  It seems to me that it doesn't matter which
> ID is just can't be 0.  The simple fix is to just remove the sentence.


> (4) §8: "Enabling the router-to-CA connectivity MAY require connections to
> external networks (i.e., through firewalls, NATs, etc.)."  That "MAY" is out of
> place because this sentence is just stating a fact.

Can do r/MAY require/requires

> (5) §8: "Note that the checks performed by the router in Section 7...SHOULD be
> performed."  Besides confirming the checks from §7, I'm not sure what this
> sentence really contributes...but I do think that the "SHOULD" is out of place
> because the Normative language is already in §7.

These are just consistency checks.

> (6) Nits
> s/used by the the/used by the
> s/corresponds to the private used/corresponds to the private key used